Occam’s Razor …
|Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. <Source> For those who, like myself, were wondering what the “razor” portion means: it refers to a literal “razor” as a tool to cut down the number of competing hypotheses.|
It appears self-evident that the Progressives are upset because the opposition is holding up a mirror that reflects poorly on their past eight years …
After studying the 2016 election cycle carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the reason that the progressive socialist democrats are so angry with the GOP and its nominee, Donald Trump, is because Trump actually exposes the failings and empty rhetoric of the progressives – where, like Obama, speeches are rarely followed by action and corruption and cronyism continue unabated. The progressive leadership must keep their base engaged and angry, lest the enter into a state of mutual cooperation with the GOP and produce tangible and measurable results that will undercut the “victimhood” and “division” sold by the democrats.
One need only look to the Black Lives Matter movement, fully supported by the progressive socialist democrats. Not only is the movement based on racism and socialist revolution, but it is also un-American and points out the progressives disrespect of the United States Constitution.
First point: under any theory of equality, ALL lives should matter; and any suggestion that only Black Lives Matter is immoral and contradictory to the principle of equality.
Second point: if Black lives did matter, why is this group picking and choosing self-limiting examples of police conduct and doing nothing about criminals, gangs, and thugs that have decimated the inner city’s black community in numbers exceeding the deaths found in a war zone?
Third point: why is the Black Lives Matter movement associated with the progressive socialist democrats who have governed the inner cities for decades with policies that have lead to destruction and decay?
Fourth point: why is the Black Lives Matter movement attacking law enforcement when it is this very institution that is keeping their community safe – or at least safer than it might be with unrestrained criminal and gang activity? Statistically, members of law enforcement have been killed in greater numbers than black civilians dying at the hands of rogue law enforcement personnel. Law enforcement is put at a significantly higher risk from blacks and these heightened tensions may result in mistakes of judgment when the adrenaline is flowing.
Fifth point: why does the Black Lives Matter movement support gun control, when it is a proven fact that you cannot control crazies or criminals; and that refusing to allow people – ALL PEOPLE – to defend themselves against stronger or more well-armed assailants?
Sixth point: why do the progressive socialist democrats demand that we release dangerous minority criminals into the community because the percentage of minorities in the incarcerated population does not match the percentage of minorities in the general population. The idea that criminality adheres to some sociological percentage is ludicrous and wrong.
Consider the choice of President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, and the progressive socialist democrats claiming that they will block the nominee with a filibuster no matter who is nominated. With the exception of President Obama, it was the tradition of the last century that a President faced with a Supreme Court nomination in the last year of their presidency, did not appoint a nominee, but left it to the incoming President. In fact, Joe Biden took to the floor of the Senate in 1992 to remind President Bush (41) of the practice so the incoming President, Bill Clinton, could name his Supreme Court nominee. And, cautioning the Senate not to allow a nominee to be considered until after the election.
First point: President Trump has an implied mandate as all of the potential nominees were revealed before the election so they could be properly and adequately vetted by anyone who might care to do so. All of the nominees were carefully chosen, have superb academic and judicial credentials, and will not upset the balance of the court as the nominee will be a direct replacement for a conservative judge, Antonin Scalia, who regarded himself as a textualist or originalist in the interpretation of the United States Constitution.
Second point: that the democrats were denied a chance to appoint former President Obama’s candidate, Merrick Garland, thus their opportunity was stolen from them. This is nothing new and it has become customary to withhold selecting Supreme Court nominees in the waning days of a president’s tenure. The idea that a court seat could be stolen belies the fact that the seat is owned by the people, the process has always been political, and that the president must abide by the dictates of the Senate in handling confirmation hearings – or even declining to hold such confirmation hearings.
Third point: the Supreme Court has been ideologically and functionally bankrupt in the past decades. Specifically, usurping the role of Congress to make law, and in finding non-existent constitutional support by ignoring the writings and intent of the Constitution’s framers and torturing the logic and text of the Constitution itself.
Consider the progressive’s claim of illegitimacy because President Trump did not appear to win the popular vote.
Point one: our electoral system relies on the electoral college in order to prevent large and populous states from disenfranchising the voters of smaller and less populous states. The genius of the Constitution’s framers is readily apparent in the way they crafted the system: three co-equal branches of government with built-in systemic checks and balances.
Point two: the progressive socialist democrats refuse to safeguard the integrity of elections by opposing any requirement for picture identification although such identification is not only free and easy to obtain, but it is required to enter a federal building, fly, cash a check. When pressed by the court to provide a single example of someone who could not get the proper identification, not one could be presented in court.
Point three: the progressive socialist democrats altered the rules of the Senate to push progressives into the lower courts by changing the filibuster rules for all judicial nominations, with the sole exception of the Supreme Court. Thus, “We the people” did not have a fair hearing in the Senate under these conditions. Now that the GOP wants to extend the rule to include Supreme Court nominees, the progressives are jumping up and down crying foul. Crocodile tears from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer notwithstanding.
Point four: Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, was and is unconstitutional as it mandates the purchase of a commercial product by the populace – at the point of a gun held by the Internal Revenue Service; fines, penalties, and possible incarceration. The administration insisted Obamacare was not a tax, then they argued in court it was a tax. The administration insisted that you could keep your doctor, and that was a demonstrable lie. The Act itself was passed by a congressional trick orchestrated by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who used a reconciliation process to lower the threshold of votes needed to pass Obamacare. And, the final bill never received a final vote in the House of Representatives.
Consider the never-ending investigations of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation which refused to recommend prosecution in clear instances of governmental wrongdoing in the Fast and Furious gunrunning to Mexican cartels, the IRS scandal, the illegal investigation of journalists, the gunrunning to Islamic terrorists in Benghazi, and a number of other high-profile high crimes and misdemeanor. Including those of Hillary Clinton who clearly violated the Espionage Act and sold access to her office in the State Department for personal gain.
Projection and Political Correctness …
Due to political correctness and the timidity of GOP politicians, nobody has truly confronted the progressive socialist democrats on their hypocrisy (do as I say, not as I do) or their psychological projection of their bad behavior onto their opponents. Truth-be-told, it was the democrat party behind slavery, segregation, the Jim Crow laws, against civil rights legislation, and the dreaded KKK. But, they continue to project their racism and bigotry onto the GOP. No longer! It appears that Donald Trump and his advisors are unafraid to respond back in kind – and in many cases, in an overwhelming manner. They cannot stand idly by and see their house riddled with rhetorical bullets and historical truths. They must attack. Attack the ideology of capitalism by claiming divisive racism. Attack Trump using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals by turning Donald Trump into the caricature of an evil know-nothing and dangerous billionaire. In this respect, Trump has only one enemy: himself.
Bottom line …
The progressives have met every Trump initiative, including those that mirror or build upon policies placed in force by former President Obama, with a degree of moral outrage and hysteria unseen in modern America. You do not see GOP supporters rioting, looting, burning or destroying public and private property. You do not see such disrespect for our military and law enforcement. And, you certainly do not see such disrespect for our First and Second Amendment rights. Where progressives who claim to support the Constitution want to deny dissent and free speech – and to eliminate, not the establishment of a state religion, but any indication that religion exists in the secular realm. These are the very people who cannot grasp the concept of inalienable rights and believe all rights should be granted by the government. How very totalitarian of them?
The opposition is all smoke and mirrors as they try to counter the overwhelming repudiation of progressive policies implemented by former President Obama and which decimated the democrat party on all levels: local, state, and federal.
It’s not about principled opposition, but raw naked power grabs and attempting to keep the hatred and racial division alive until the next election cycle in 2018. This is not the principled democrat party of my parent’s generation or of my youth. If has been thoroughly infiltrated by 60s radicals, socialists, communists, anarchists, and others who do not wish America well/
We are so screwed.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius